On Monday night, the debt committee failed in its task to find a solution to America's debt crisis. Democrats and Republicans share blame for this debacle. However, in offering revenue increases far below the realistic compromises offered by House speaker John Boehner in his August negotiations with President Obama, Republicans bear a heavy burden of responsibility.

In the end, supercommittee Republicans put an anti-revenue orthodoxy before the interests of the country. Now, unless a bipartisan deal can be reached by the end of next year (an even greater challenge during an election year), the US military will face automatic and catastrophic cuts. In their unwillingness to engage in a pragmatic compromise, supercommittee Republicans have seriously jeopardised the national security foundations on which the Republican party has long resided.

What Republicans did – or did not do – on Monday night was dangerous, illogical and, in the context of ongoing foreign combat deployments, immoral.

I am a Republican. A major part of my attachment to the party stems from its traditional support of a well-equipped and effective military. After 9/11, I often took comfort that our deployed personnel generally had the support that they needed to do their jobs. Amid the looming cuts, those years seem very distant today.

Decline of the U.S. Military:

While President Obama has already announced around $450bn in cuts to military spending over the next decade, these reductions represent a balance (albeit imperfect) between lowering the fiscal deficit and avoiding substantially weakened US military capabilities. But by inviting, via their intransigence, $500bn dollars of additional ten-year cuts to the military, supercommittee Republicans appear to have effected an overnight party conversion from foreign policy realism to strategic idiocy. While there are notable Republicans who have been honest about the need and practicalities necessary to protect military spending, so far, their numbers are insufficient.

There can be no question that combined together, the effect of the cuts will be disastrous for the US military. Defense Secretary Panetta has suggested that if the cuts proceed, military procurement would be gutted to such an extent that America would have its "smallest ground force since 1940, the smallest number of ships since 1915, and the smallest air force in its history". The US Military leadership have echoed this assessment. The head of the US Army, General Odierno, has stated that the cuts would "almost eliminate our modernisations programs", while US Marine head, General Amos, noted that the cuts would potentially lead to "a Marine Corps below the end strength that's necessary to support even one major contingency".

All this risk, in a decade that will likely see the continuing rapid growth of the Chinese military, continuing instability in the Middle East and South Asia, alongside the need to rebuild a force strained by years of war. It is crazy that the prospective benefit for these cuts is the avoidance of revenue reforms that would ask some to pay a little more and others simply to pay what they are supposed to be paying already. How can our party with a straight face ask young men and women to deploy on multiple combat tours and then reward that service and sacrifice with the message that it is more important to honor Grover Norquist's pledge than it is to support them? This is the opposite of what it is to be a Republican.

Republican Image:

Beyond the impact of the cuts on the US military, the impact of the cuts on the credibility of the Republican party will also be profound. Over the past ten years, Republicans have often rightly opposed those who have mixed absolutely justifiable anti-war attitudes with unjustified attacks on non-political military officers doing difficult jobs. Whatever one thinks of the politician or the war (and they should feel free to air those opinions robustly), military personnel deserve the respect and the backing, when deployed under orders, that they need in order to do their jobs effectively.

Now to strip our servicemen and women of the tools they need to do their jobs is the ultimate insult and the height of hypocrisy. Such action is also extraordinarily politically stupid. The Republican party is risking the support of millions of veterans and military voters who have long gravitated to our party.

Republicans in Congress must now take account of the choice that our party faces. We can restore our national security position as intellectual conservatives, or we can continue to morph into a party of ideological partisans. We can follow in the intellectual legacy of scholars like Henry Kissinger, or we can pursue the foreign policy expertise of a Herman Cain. We can embrace the heritage of leaders like Abraham Lincoln, or we can sacrifice our military at the altar of Grover Norquist. This is our choice.

"strategic idiocy" that pretty much describes the republican party.
your surprised that the people that put junior in office would made bad decisions?
and anyway our military is the strongest in the world based on tech, we can stand having less man power when we are getting closer and closer to having robotic kill hounds.

Ok, first off I realize your upset about the massive cuts in defense spending, but you have to ask yourself the real benefit of that spending. You also need to remember that, historically, the United States has broken records when it comes to preparing for war. When the Japanese destroyed Pearl Harbor, the United States rebuilt an entire navy in 3 years. 14 carriers alone were built in ww2 and saw combat; China today has a hard time building one carrier. Now, we don't have anything close to that type of industry today, but you shouldnt sell the U.S. short to believe that we don't have the money, determination, and knowledge to mechanize if we had to. This country wrote that chapter in war. Among all nations, United States has shown it can deal with a crisis in war. If China today had to deal with a similar situation, its likely that their slave workforce would just flee from the whip and join the invading force at their doorstep.

The United States spends the most in defense than any other country. The budget needs to be cut one way or another. It is either we cut on the average American or we cut defense spending that does not, arguably, benefit the average American. For example, what benefit do Americans get out of having a base of 2,500 troops in Australia? What benefit do Americans receive out of bases in South Korea? The only real benefit those bases provide is for the defense of non-Americans. Who is more important? The defense of South Koreans or the defense of Americans? Your answer seems to be South Koreans since there is no doubt that if North Korea invaded, S.K would launch N.K's malnourished behind to the moon.

Honestly, it's time to count chickens, and find out what defense spending is not in our best interests, and oh boy there is a lot that is not in our interests. Much of the defense spending is crony capitalism at its best. We are not at war with the entire world, and we should not have a defense budget to pretend we are. We would do better to not stretch our spending too thin and to cut down on defense.

Even if we had no military, no country would stand a chance invading the United States with the largest gun ownership in the world. A reborn American Militia would rival in the millions and even wipe out the U.S. military today.

Many countries like the U.K. and Germany have defense budgets miniscule to ours and they are not being invaded. Throwing money at a futuristic military force that doesn't exist is simply illogical and disgusting in this time of budget cuts. The average American is hurting from the economic and budget problems soon enough, so why would the military be immune? Should we send our sons and daughters off to boot camp so they can pay for college, or should we send them to a University with college loans? In one hand we cut benefits and spending on defense or in another we hurt the true means to success. Pick your poison.

Btw, I am also Republican, but I think Americans are more important than wasteful spending in military. Of course Leon Panetta is going to cry fowl and exaggerate. I am sure the CEO of solyndra would cry fowl too if his government funding were cut before they went bankrupt. Leon Panetta has the means to defend this country. He just isn't going to take it with a straight face.

Republicans stonewall everything with "No" again instead of talking? No one is suprised. All they have seemed to care about this last four years is opposing Obama instead of putting forth any sort of plan or ideas. It's utterly disgusting. No, "TAX CUTS!" is not a plan it's a step to a nonexistant plan that could do as much damage as help.

Republicans stonewall everything with "No" again instead of talking? No one is suprised. All they have seemed to care about this last four years is opposing Obama instead of putting forth any sort of plan or ideas. It's utterly disgusting. No, "TAX CUTS!" is not a plan it's a step to a nonexistant plan that could do as much damage as help.

True, it doesn't matter what Obama proposes, the Republicans will still say no. They can't compromise at all.

They are elected for the good of the people and their constituents, not to further a personal or party agenda. The Republican behaviour is reminiscent of small children in kindergarten who were unable to compromise or share. Even if they don't agree fully with Democrat suggestions, they should compromise and accept what would be the "lesser evil" rather than leave things in total disarray.

Originally Posted by maldias

your surprised that the people that put junior in office would made bad decisions?

Still scratching my head at that one.
Also, in a country of 300 million people I don't understand how a father and son can BOTH become president.

I don't mind the cuts. Do we really need like 8000 f18s/f22s/f35s? Who we fighting? the alien ships from independence day? No need for all those aircraft.

Considering the next potential enemy of the US has like 14 jets dated from the 1960's.

We have far greater techonogly AND far greater numbers in ships/aircraft. We should focus more on advancing the tech more...and having less numbers. We just need to come up with a ship that can do the work of and has the self-defence and firepower as 10 battleships do now. Same thing with our aircraft.

For the record, I'm not Republican nor did I write this. It's an article from The Guardian.

I just find it hard to stomach that a lobbyist can have more power and influence than elected officials.
That just isn't right and points to the system being screwed up in a major way.

I did read your whole post, and I did see the sources. I assumed some of it was quoted or a source for argument. I do agree though that Grover Norquist is the real problem. Negotiation is not a dirty word in politics, it is the politics. Even the icon, Ronald Reagan, would be appalled at the idea of a no compromise legislative.

This is what happens when you cling unyieldingly to a particular belief without room to compromise. Heck, "compromise" is a dirty word to the Tea Party, and Republicans--in their reckless bid to quickly regain power after being devastated by the neoconservatives--have embraced the Tea Party and all the wackiness, political inflexibility, and devastation to the nation that goes with it.

Wacky did I say? Yup. How else could you descrbe a group that is devoutly Christian and yet boos anything that includes the noble concept of compassion?

Inflexible did I say? Yep. When you sign a pledge to not increase taxes, you've essentially abdicated your responsibility on fiscal issues to whomever you signed your pledge to. Instead of making deals that are good--but not ideal--to your cause, you can't do it because it breaks your pledge.

Devastating did I say? Mmm-hmm. By having the conservative half of this country being dictated so much by the people towards the far right, the tone is becoming more and more callous and even shades of McCarthyism are coming back with the kind of willingness to embrace persecution that it entails. At a time when the nation needs good leadership and good policy, you have everything being held hostage by a group of people who seem to be becoming more ignorant, backwards, and cruel by the day.

Putting up the picture of Grover Norquist was very suitable. Because of his idiocy and unelected power over elected officials, Congress can barely get anything done at all. Spectacularly good deals for conservative ideals have been lost because the politicians are bound by a pledge to be absolutely unwavering in raising taxes. Remember at one of the earlier GOP debates when asked what level of revenue increases vs spending decreases they would agree to? You couldn't even get candidates to agree to a 10-to-1 cut-to-revenue ratio.

What frustrates me is that I know that most conservatives aren't loony. They are mostly good and reasonable people. So why are they allowing their leadership that is supposed to represent them go so far off the deep end? Why are they letting the bunch at the extreme right get manipulated by the superwealthy and into forcing measures that hurt almost everyone else? When will moderate conservatives finally speak up and say "Hey, this is going too far. Enough!"?

The Democrats are equally boneheaded. The Difference is that the rhetoric of the Republicans is actually sound from an economic standpoint. In reality it's just rhetoric though, neither party wants to cut any spending - except for a few Tea Party folks.

The republicans are not "manipulated by the superwealthy" anymore than the democrats are.

What frustrates me is that I know that most conservatives aren't loony. They are mostly good and reasonable people. So why are they allowing their leadership that is supposed to represent them go so far off the deep end? Why are they letting the bunch at the extreme right get manipulated by the superwealthy and into forcing measures that hurt almost everyone else? When will moderate conservatives finally speak up and say "Hey, this is going too far. Enough!"?

That's adorable.

The moderate conservatives aren't speaking up because there are no moderate conservatives - stuff like "wars should end eventually" and "torture is a bad thing" put you firmly in the camp of the left wing over here.

People who are moderate vote Democrat. People who are normally reasonable but are very gullible vote Republican. Plenty of not-crazy people I know will tell anyone who will listen that President Obama is actually a Muslim non-American warmongering pacifist who has super-increased all the spending everywhere despite the fact that it's the literal opposite of all evidence. People don't use information to make decisions - they decide what "feels right" to them and then vote (and believe) accordingly.

---------- Post added 2011-11-23 at 11:21 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Diurdi

The Democrats are equally boneheaded. The Difference is that the rhetoric of the Republicans is actually sound from an economic standpoint. In reality it's just rhetoric though, neither party wants to cut any spending - except for a few Tea Party folks.

Actually, the rhetoric of Republicans on economics doesn't match anything that has ever worked, and flies in the face of all available evidence. Once upon a time, Republicans believed in things like "expertise". But when Milton Friedman is considered way too left-wing for your party, you have abandoned all pretense of rational thought.